What do you guys think of Pankration. They say it is a 3000 year old art, but what I don't get is that they restarted it in the 60s. So how many techniques are actually original techniques that they used 3000 years ago. Is it not just a case of them starting a martial art and calling it Pankration. After all there are only so many ways to punch kick etc.

I doubt many are the orginal techqiues, the most realistic and nearesrt "Martial Art" to Pankration you could find is MMA I should think.

Is it not just a case of them starting a martial art and calling it Pankration.

Yes.

"Training = pain." - I said that.

PizDoff when drunk: "I'm actually MOST pissed that my target for the evening got drink...then I gave her my Bullshido Canada hoodie like a gentleman because she was outside with not much on...did I mention she barfed twice when I got our jackets...steaming barf is kinda fascinating..." - PizDoff.

It seems like the art is one of those "single jedi in the mountain passed it from generation to generation" deals. Well, I study an art that is pretty much that same thing. The best that something like that can do is take possibly written info mixed with what's been passed down and then fill in the blanks with another art that is supposedly similar. It's all kind of like resurrecting the dinosaur in Jurassic Park, taking old, decayed DNA and filling in the blanks with frog DNA.

From what I seen and read is the Pankration was just the term used for the fighting in the Pancrase, the actual event. There was no ONE style or specific set of skill just pple using what they thought best to beat the crap out of each other.

To echo Asia...my understanting is that Pankration was an event...not a style. And I'd wager that it was very similar if not identical to modern MMA fights. There was a poster a while back called DJ Cold Fusion who was very knowlegeable in this area.

OT: Everytime someone brings up the pankration and it's age I'm reminded of an ad I saw many moons ago selling the Fighting style of Neanderthal man. Seriously...I can't make this up.

I believe it's merely a question of source. As Asia mentions, it was the first NHB event in which individuals utilized their personal fighting skill. However, it is a matter of historical note that many notable contestants were utilizing a family art... methods passed down from one generation to another. Considering that citizens had to serve as soldiers as there was no 'official' standing army, it is quite logical.

Saying that this is the same art as what was done 3000 years ago is about as ludicrous as those schools that claim to be teaching the 1500 year old shaolin arts. Then they say it comes from India and its actually 2000 years old. Then some actually have the nerve to say well India got it from Egypt which makes it 5000 years old. (I'm not making this up btw)

My friend's response to this is "how do you know what they were doing 5000 years ago worry if it works now."

ASIA-KEN OH and SHEOL are partially correct...
PANCRASE OR PANKRATION is the name of the same thing. PANKRATION on it's Original form was a fighting system not an Event, basically all fighters were training in the same things, Boxing Wrestling-(with locks similar to JJ or BJJ) and some say a few kicks (ussually front kicks). Yes it was NHB only biting and Eyegouging was not permited during these fights. Many fighers died in the Arena back then not only becouse the fights were very brutal, but becouse the fighters wouldn't give up. I heard that a fighter had extencive injuries and kept fighting, after Wining the fight he Died. Today PANKRATION or PANCRASE is an EVENT the Fighters r trained in deferent Fighting Systems, some r similar to each other, but all of them r using deferent training methods, with deferent coaches, and lets don't forget the Drugs huh... Also today's PANKRATION-PANCRASE has plenty of rules.
As i said above PANKRATION was an Olympic Sport back then like Greco-Roman or Freestyle Wrestling.

You are referring to the usage of age to convey legitimacy. Age only matters in historical research. Whether something 'works' is of greater concern, but how can you trust someone who misrepresents what they teach?